Which held provision versions contain captured publisher cross-references to this work. This reverse lookup reports the publisher references Lex captured; it does not classify their relationship type or assess current legal effect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| work | Yes | the law being cited, e.g. lu-legilux:loi-2020-06-04-a476 | |
| limit | No | default 50 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / work / maxLengthAdded value: +1000Input schema / properties / work / minLengthAdded value: +1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It states that the tool 'reports the publisher references Lex captured' and explicitly notes what it does NOT do (classify or assess legal effect), which is valuable context. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence clarifies limitations without unnecessary detail. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description communicates both the result scope (held provision versions with publisher references) and its limitations. It lacks a concrete example or mention of pagination behavior, but the mention of 'captured publisher cross-references' provides sufficient context for an agent to select the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover both parameters completely ('the law being cited' for work, 'default 50' for limit). The description adds no new parameter-specific guidance, but the baseline 3 applies given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific query: 'Which held provision versions contain captured publisher cross-references to this work,' clearly identifying the tool as a reverse citation lookup. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing 'reverse lookup' and its focus on publisher references.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (reverse citation lookup) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. It does provide a limitation ('does not classify relationship type or assess current legal effect'), which hints at scope, but lacks explicit alternative comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.